Families of RAF Chinook crash victims ask court to allow case to proceed
CJC lawyers told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that information about the Chinook’s airworthiness “reveals more than arguable allegations that the persons killed in the crash were placed on an aircraft known to be unsafe.”
They added that there were “deep and firm” concerns about airworthiness, but that despite numerous investigations into the crash, no investigation had taken the matter into account.
Sam Jacobs, for the CJC, told the court in London: “It is historic but also extraordinary that the bereaved families of 29 people are faced with unanswered questions about what has often been described as the RAF’s worst peacetime disaster.”
Many relatives of those who lost their lives also attended the hearing, some of them cried during the hearing.
Andy Tobias, whose father Lieutenant Colonel John Tobias MBE was killed in the crash, described it as a “very important day”.
The helicopter crashed in foggy weather while transporting 25 intelligence experts and four special forces teams from RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland to Fort George near Inverness.
In written submissions, Jacobs said the crash occurred two days after the helicopter was delivered, following a “problematic upgrade and demo”.
He continued that the Department of Defense had sued Boeing over the upgrade before the crash, and that the safety-critical engine control system on the helicopter had been described by the Aircraft and Weapons Testing Establishment as having a “concentration of deficiencies.”
Jacobs also said that one of the engines of the helicopter involved in the accident had to be replaced three times in the months before the incident, and problems were also reported with the second engine.
He said: “It can clearly be argued that airworthiness caused the accident; in fact, it can also be argued that the HC-2 should not have flown at all.”
In written submissions, the Ministry of Defence’s Daniel Beard KC said the crash had been the subject of “extensive investigations” and that the CJC had “not raised any information that would revive any obligation to investigate”.
He also said the Boeing case was “unrelated to the crash” and that the CJC’s case was based on “vague allegations” about the helicopter’s airworthiness, without explaining why the legal challenge was not launched sooner.
He added that “given the paucity of evidence and the passage of time, it is unlikely that further meaningful investigation will be possible or that further investigation will serve any practical purpose.”
He continued: “The plaintiff understandably wishes to bring all the facts to light.
“However, this request must be evaluated taking into account evidence limitations, resolved civil cases, lessons learned, and the changing operational context.”
The hearing is expected to conclude later on Tuesday.
